Science attempts to be a meritocracy; however, in recent years, there has been increasing evidence for systematic gender bias against women. This bias is present in many metrics commonly used to evaluate scientific productivity, which in turn influences hiring and career success. Here we explore a new metric, the Altmetric Attention Score, and find no evidence of bias across many major journals (Nature, PNAS, PLOS One, New England Journal of Medicine, Cell, and BioRxiv), with equal attention afforded to articles authored by men and women alike. The exception to this rule is the journal Science, which has marked gender bias against women in 2018, equivalent to a mean of 88 more tweets or 11 more news articles and a median of 20 more tweets or 3 more news articles for male than female first authors. Our findings qualify Altmetric, for many types and disciplines of journals, as a potentially unbiased measure of science communication in academia and suggest that new technologies, such as those on which Altmetric is based, might help to democratize academic evaluation.

科学试图成为精英。然而，近年来，越来越多的证据表明对妇女的系统性性别偏见。这种偏见存在于许多通常用于评估科学生产率的指标中，而这些指标反过来又会影响招聘和职业成功。在这里，我们探索了一个新的指标，即“注意力指标得分”，并没有发现许多主要期刊（《自然》，《 PNAS》，《 PLOS One》，《新英格兰医学杂志》，《 Cell》和《 BioRxiv》）存在偏见的证据，并且同等关注由作者撰写的文章男人和女人都一样。该规则的例外情况是《科学》杂志，该杂志在2018年明显地偏向女性，相当于平均比男性多了88条推文或11条新闻，中位数为20条推文或3条新闻。作者。我们的发现符合Altmetric标准，